Tom Adams

September 26, 2003

Dear Friend:

The Great Blackout of 2003 is the latest of the great blackouts that we’ve suffered, and it affected the most people – 50 million people in Canada and the U.S.. But this recent blackout is hardly the worst – the great blackout in the 1998 Ice Storm in Quebec, Ontario and the U.S. northeast, led to the loss of power for 34 days and caused far more hardship and disruption. Quebec alone suffered 30 deaths; 450 shelters needed to be established and 17,800 people were forced from their homes.

These major blackouts tell only part of the story. Throughout Canada, smaller and less publicized blackouts – lasting several minutes or several hours – continually disrupt our communities, harming our economy and inconveniencing our citizens.

The truth is stark: Our power systems have become increasingly unreliable and for one overarching reason – highly centralized power systems are inherently vulnerable. They not only are likelier to fail; when they do fail, they are more difficult to restore.

The Great Blackout of 2003 is a case in point. New York, Cleveland, and other U.S. cities all had their power restored fairly quickly. Toronto and other Canadian cities took longer to get power back, and even when they did, they remained vulnerable for days, with auto plants and many non-essential services needing to remain shut down. Why did Ontario communities suffer most in the aftermath? Because Ontario is over-reliant on nuclear plants that couldn’t be brought back into service quickly without courting danger. As Ontario Premier Ernie Eves admitted: “Every time you talk about one of these units you have to bear in mind that, with all nuclear units, as you try to get them up to speed, you could incur a problem, like a tube could leak, a tube could crack.”

Also for reasons of over-centralization, Quebec suffered far more in the 1998 Ice Storm than New York and other neighbouring jurisdictions in the U.S., which restored power between two and three weeks faster. The reason? Quebec has an excessive reliance on large but vulnerable long-distance transmission lines.

One country that has worked hard in the last decade to decentralize its power systems has been the United Kingdom, which broke up the state monopoly in 1990 and replaced it with a diverse, competitive and well regulated system. With competition, giant nuclear and coal plants have been phased out in favour of clean technologies and with wise regulation, the companies became accountable. The result, as you can see in the article by my colleague, Larry Solomon, is a dramatic decrease in interruptions, as well as an improved economy and environment.

From the time that we are children, we are told not to put too many eggs in one basket. Yet those in charge of Canada’s huge power systems seem to have forgotten that lesson. That’s why Quebec suffered more than anyone else in 1998 and why Ontario suffered more than anyone else in 2003. New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta, and B.C. risk a similar fate – to the economy as well as to our security – if they don’t diversify their systems to diversify their risk.

If you agree that Canada must move toward decentralized electricity systems – not more massive nuclear plants or more massive nuclear plants or more massive transmission corridors carrying power thousands of miles from remote northern locations – please send us a generous, tax-creditable donation. Like the U.K., Canada needs a sustainable energy system based on conservation, renewable energy, and other clean technologies.

With your help, someday soon we’ll achieve that goal.

Yours truly,

<!–

–>

Tom Adams
Executive Director

I agree! Smaller, more decentralized power systems are more economic and more reliable. To promote safe, sustainable and accountable energy systems, I would like to donate online.

Please see Holding power companies to account and compensating consumers

A record you can be proud of

• Energy Probe was the world’s first organization to recognize – in 1980 – that the electric power business is not a natural monopoly. We then developed the successful model for breaking up electricity monopolies, which the United Kingdom adopted in 1989. As we predicted, under this model, the U.K. cancelled the construction of new nuclear plants, began to shut down existing ones, and turned to advanced clean technologies such as cogeneration and renewable energy to meet its energy needs. Power rates fell for residential, commercial and industrial users.

   

• The Energy Probe model has since become the dominant model for electricity restructuring around the world, successfully implemented in Australia, New Zealand, South America and elsewhere (California, regrettably, did not adopt the Energy Probe approach).

   

• Since Energy Probe opposed nuclear power, Canada’s nuclear industry has cancelled 70 Darlington-sized reactors that were scheduled to be running by 2000. The Darlington nuclear plant was begun in 1970. Since then, no new nuclear plants have been ordered and completed, anywhere in Canada.

   

• Energy Probe was the first environmental organization in Canada – and to our knowledge, the world – to oppose the construction of nuclear power plants. We recognized that nuclear power was uneconomic in 1974.

   

• In bringing about these accomplishments, Energy Probe was entirely funded by Canadian citizens and typically outspent by the nuclear industry, 1000 to 1. Our success in influencing our country’s policies was noted by the inaugural edition of The Canadian Encyclopedia, which added that "despite its low budget, Energy Probe is respected for its scrupulous research."